Reply With Quote
Bull on both counts.
Neither one won a le, so I guess it comes down to, would you rather be the most important member of the SSOL Suns with two mvp trophies on your mantle, along with getting slurped and knobslobbed by every media outlet over a 3 year period for "saving basketball" or some ...or the better all-around player who made two Finals appearances and resurrected a dead franchise in New Jersey?
Bull on both counts.
neither won or will win a ring. so WGAF
Solid take. Thanks for weighing in and wasting everyone's time.
Better career: Matt Bonner or Jason Kapono? They both won rings.
This is obviously a way better argument than Kidd vs. Nash since they both won rings.
Someone should create a who's better post-injuries Ron Harper or Derek Fisher thread since they have 9 rings combined!
Robert Horry > Karl Malone
7 > 0
Going by careers, it's Nash. Because neither of them have rings, you have to look at individual accomplishments, and Nash is one of only like, what, 8 or 9 players in history with b2b MVPs.
The starting lineup of Stockton, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing would get slaughtered by Robert Horry in a 1 on 5 game simply cause one team has 6 championships while the other has 7.
But the only one that hasn't won a ring (or make a finals).
For me, it's Kidd.
Those MVPs are ing meaningless media jerk off material.
Kidd's number of triple-doubles are much more impressive.
Besides, how can we seriously give Nash the edge here when he's been one the worst defenders in the league? There are two ends in a basketball game. Both equal in importance.
Nash's MVP awards are pretty dubious. I don't think it was a racial thing, so much as sportswriters were enchanted with making an unconventional "outside the box" pick. Thing is, it was stupid. The MVP award tends to go to the guy who is the best player on the team with the best-regular season record. In 2005, that was Nash, although his former team improved their record by 6 wins, and the Lakers cratered without Shaq. Then in 2006 it was a total copout, simply because the Suns were able to stay afloat without the highly overrated Amar'''''''''e.
Neither Jason Kidd nor Steve Nash have a championship. Just thought I'd let everyone know.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...904050DAL.html
+1
I loved those Heat-Knicks series. Some of the best basketball I have had the privilege of watching.
Kidd came oh-so-close to an MVP himself, while playing basketball on both sides (o and d).
The East did suck in 2001, I'll give some of you that. But 2002 was a different story.
Who the wants to watch teams beat the out of each other in a bunch of 77-70 games? It's about as fun to watch as a pickup game. I know the other end of the spectrum is 160-150 layup lines, but please.
The ratings, IIRC were pretty good back then.
They were playing hard. They were intense. The made shots despite the good defense. That was impressive.
Layup lines... not so much.
Leave it to Pistonfan to come gay up a thread talking about how games where each team shoots below 40% are fun to watch.
(Can't wait for the "HAHAHA of course a Suns fan hates defense" response to this)
The difference between say the SSOL Suns and a team like the Warriors is good ball movement and spacing, execution and passing, whereas the Dubs just like to jack up shots with 20 seconds on the shot clock and stand around on defense. The Suns were defensively challenged for sure, but they did have good defensive players like Marion and Raja Bell and they actually were middle of the pack according to defensive efficiency ratings, meaning that they actually tried on that side of the court.
If the teams couldn't make shots because they were crappy shooters, I would agree. But if they couldn't make the shots because they were defended by the monster block, or the great steal, or the good foul, than it is very enjoyable.
IIRC, one of the most memorable plays of that era was LJ's 4 pt play. Apparently, they were good enough shooters. Just better defenders.
Scoring was fine most of the 80s. The 90s were just an abomination.
The problem I have with he league now are touch flagrents and 95% of NBA players literally moving out of the way when Lebron James goes to the rim.
He would have been put in the hospital back in the day.
There was too much isolation play in the nineties. Nineties ball involved way too many clearouts where 8 guys were watching 2 guys go 1-on-1. I agree with 21 that they call too many touch fouls now, but I happen to prefer better ball movement.
Go back and look at some of the scores from the 80's during the NBA's "Golden Age." 125-120 games were pretty routine.
Intensity and execution are not limited to 75-70 rugby matches. There's a difference between say a 135-130 Memphis-Sacramento game and this:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...703140DAL.html
Actually a tough one. Kidd made it to the finals I think, but that was in the east when the 8th seed in the west could have made the finals there. I'd have to call a tie because Kidd made the finals, but Nash consistently faced a tougher conference.
The occasional high scoring game is expected to happen. But when a team consistently puts up 130 and gives up around 130 it usually points to a team that is not playing intensely for half the game (when they are on defense.) And that is aggravating to watch and gets boring pretty fast.
That Dallas team played defense. Not the best defense in the world, but they played hard on both sides of the ball far more often than not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
